Patna High Court
Badal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the lower court's refusal and granted bail to the appellant with conditions.
Summary
The appellant Badal Kumar appealed against the Special Judge's refusal to grant regular bail in a case involving alleged poisoning that led to the death of Monu Kumar. The prosecution alleged that the appellant supplied a poisonous liquid to the victim, constituting offences under Sections 274, 275, 123 and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the SC/ST Act. The appellant claimed a clean antecedent, asserted that the FIR was fabricated, and pointed out that co‑accused had been granted bail by the same court. The High Court, noting the appellant's clean record and the bail granted to similarly situated co‑accused, set aside the lower court's order and granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and specific conditions. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail despite the Special Judge's refusal under Section 14(A)(2).
- Whether the appellant's clean antecedent and the bail granted to co‑accused justify granting bail.
- Whether the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the SC/ST Act warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 123, 274, 275
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 14(A)(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- SC/ST Act
- poisoning
- appeal
- criminal antecedent
- Section 14(A)(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1606 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2024 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Badal Kumar son of Navin Kuwar @ Navin Kumar Singh @ Naveen Kumar
Resident of village -Chaksalem PS -Patory District -Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sikdev Paswan son of Late Saryug Paswan village- Chaksalem, Ward no. 9,
ps- Patory, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nand Kumar Sagar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 08-04-2026 Despite valid service of notice upon Respondent No.
2 and also the fact that learned SPP for State had informed the
Respondent No.2 about the present case, no one appeared on
behalf of Respondent No.2.
2. Heard Mr. Nand Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P. for
the State.
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 25.10.2024
passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act,
Samastipur in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 343 of
2024, F.I.R. dated 29.08.2024 registered under Sections 274,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1606 of 2025(7) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
275, 123, 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 3(1)
(r) (s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, the appellant
came at informant’s house and took informant’s son, Monu
Kumar with him to his house where other accused persons were
present before and this appellant gave some poisonous liquid to
the informant’s son and thereafter assaulted and abused the him
using case abusive words and drove him from his house. As the
condition of Monu Kumar got worsened, he was taken to
hospital for treatment but he died the next day.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
appellant has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R.
Infact the appellant along with deceased and other persons had
consumed the liquor in question due to which appellant had also
lost his vision and appellant had no knowledge about the fact
that the liquor which they are taking is poisonous and similarly
situated co-accused persons, namely, Munni Devi @ Priya Devi
and Deep Kumar @ Depak Kumar @ Chhotu have been granted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1606 of 2025(7) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
the privilege of bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 18.03.2025 in Cr. Appl(SJ) No. 5465 of 2024. He
next submits that the police had submitted charge-sheet against
the appellant and the appellant is in custody since 30.08.2024.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, appellant has clean antecedent and similarly situated co-
accused persons have been granted the privilege of bail by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court ,let the appellant, above named,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST(POA)
Act, Samastipur in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 343 of
2024, with other following conditions:-
i. Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1606 of 2025(7) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage it is found that the appellant have concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…